Apparent personality traits often reflect attempts to conform to local norms

Evidence

There are three important themes that emerge in this chapter. First, that conformity is normal, not an abnormal personality weakness. Like any other belief, attitude, and behavior, we learn how to feel about others and social groups from our family, our peers, and our culture. Having attitudes and beliefs that are very different from our friends is uncomfortable, and we are likely to change them to fit our friends, or change our friends to fit our beliefs. To desire to fit in is normal, natural, and leads to highly adaptive social behavior. Second, norms operate on a societal level; norms change over time and different “subcultures” create different local norms that can make competing demands on individuals when they cross those subcultures. When people make major life transitions, whether at school or at work, when they become married, parents, or empty-nesters, when they move to a new neighborhood, area, or country, the norms about what attitudes are proper are likely to change, and adapting to these new norms is a significant challenge of everyday life. Third, what may seem like inconsistency and “inner conflict” may actually reflect attempts to be consistent with local norms. When people make these changes, when they adapt to new groups and changing norms, the motives they report and the experiences that they have in conforming to new norms may sometimes appear to be enduring personality traits, motive profiles or value configurations. Instead, they may often be simply attempts to conform to a new set of norms. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1936

Third, what may seem like inconsistency and “inner conflict” may actually reflect attempts to be consistent with local norms. When people make these changes, when they adapt to new groups and changing norms, the motives they report and the experiences that they have in conforming to new norms may sometimes appear to be enduring personality traits, motive profiles or value configurations. Instead, they may often be simply attempts to conform to a new set of norms. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1937

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the situationist critique of personality (Mischel) and the ‘fundamental attribution error’ — visible personality may be a conformity artifact. — connects to: Behavioral surplus profiles reveal personality through formal style, not content — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 859; Random actor placement makes personality study more rather than less necessary — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 1132
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that reported motives and value profiles are often merely attempts to conform reframes personality psychology’s basic ontology — worth sitting with.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1936; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1937